Picks 36 and 52

[WilliamPowell]

I was told that you cannot downgrade a player from the vet list. Therefore if this is the case Campbell will remain on the vet list. Therefore we currently have 30 players plus 1 vet. Promote Moore = 31 players + 1 vet. Therefore need 7 more to make 38. 6 natD (1,4,12,16,20,36) and 1 PSD. Can someone confirm ?

HarryH, veterans can either be included in the list of 38 or outside it (eg list of 38 + vets). Campbell will remain on the vets list in 2005 and Richo will be put on the vets list for the first time.

My understanding is our 2 vets will be included in the list of 38 - so currently (if we promote Moore) we have 32 players on the list - so we have 6 picks available.

I believe that Pettifer has another year to run. I thought he was out of contract and the end of last season and he signed a new 2 year deal.

Correct me if i am mistaken.

No Bull - Pettifer was only given a 1 year deal last season

[JohnF]

Agree with double H, we must use those draft picks and get rid of dead wood. There are still plenty of guys that I'd get rid of to secure those two picks. Not sure of their contract situations but I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we got rid of the following players to make room: A Kellaway, Chaffey, Hilton, Weller, Morrison, Petiffer, Rodan, Tuck, Fleming. All are either past it, or not up to it.

Have to disagree with you about Tuck JF. He was in the bests almost every week for Coburg (don';t ask me why he couldn't get a game in the ones). He's also got good size and is pretty hard at it.

Agree with the others though.

Also, I think we'd be crazy not to use pick 52. Going on GH's mock on footydraft, players like Gilham, Knights, May and JD Smith may all be available. No way is it worth keeping Hilton etc if we can get one of these guys.

Disco, I haven't seen much of Tuck so my call might be harsh, but I haven't been overly impressed with what I have seen. He is ok, goes in, gets a bit of the pill, kicks far, but he fumbles quite a bit and doesn't really look to where he is kicking the ball. (I know, I know, I could make the same statement for 20 guys on our list). Dragicevic was also amongst the best at Coburg every week but he looked totally at sea in the games he played in the firsts. Playing well for Coburg and Richmond are two totally different stories.

I don't doubt Tuck is good enough to remain on our ordinary list, it's just that i wouldn't mind if he wasn't on it, as he'll most likely be gone in a year or two regardless. Hope he proves me wrong and goes on to have a good career at the RFC.

[mightytiges]

The excuse from the Club for Tuck not getting a game was he needed to work on his decision making. Although possibly true it was a strange comment given a number in the senior side suffered the same bad trait  . I wouldn't say he's safe as he hasn't done anything yet to warrant that but IMO there are others ahead of him.

[Harry]

I was told that you cannot downgrade a player from the vet list. Therefore if this is the case Campbell will remain on the vet list. Therefore we currently have 30 players plus 1 vet. Promote Moore = 31 players + 1 vet. Therefore need 7 more to make 38. 6 natD (1,4,12,16,20,36) and 1 PSD. Can someone confirm ?

HarryH, veterans can either be included in the list of 38 or outside it (eg list of 38 + vets). Campbell will remain on the vets list in 2005 and Richo will be put on the vets list for the first time.

My understanding is our 2 vets will be included in the list of 38 - so currently (if we promote Moore) we have 32 players on the list - so we have 6 picks available.

I believe that Pettifer has another year to run. I thought he was out of contract and the end of last season and he signed a new 2 year deal.

Correct me if i am mistaken.

No Bull - Pettifer was only given a 1 year deal last season

This is really bothering me and I hope it doesn't pan out this way.  We cannot pass on picks 36 an 52.  If what you say is true then we must delist Hilton and one other.  If we only pick up 6 more players then, in effect we will only have 7 new players which is stuff all for a club that finished on the bottom and that is apparently rebuilding.  Even 10 new players is conservative IMO. 7 is a joke.

[Tiger Spirit]

HarryH, I agree that it would be less than ideal if we only have 7 new players on our list next season.  But, looking at it from the Club’s side of things, we’re in a mess, with players on inflated contracts and having players on our list who shouldn’t be there.  That’s going to take at least another 1 or 2 seasons, maybe more, to get ourselves back on an even keel.

It seems that if we miss out on any picks it will be because of budget constraints.  From that point of view, I don’t know that we can be overly critical, under the circumstances, if the Club is doing the best it can to operate within the rules and under the current financial situation it is in.

So, if the number of players we draft is less than we would like, it will more than likely be because of those budget reasons.  Otherwise, if it was possible, we would use as many draft picks as are available to us.  Because I don’t think Greg Miller would go out of his way to pass up on any young talent, without good reason.

I don’t understand either, how Hilton (and others) is still on our list, but I reckon that unless there was a good reason then he wouldn’t be there (and he still may not be there by year’s end).  But I’m prepared to accept whatever the final outcome is, because it’s not necessarily as simple as we think it is and because Miller and Wallace wouldn’t go out of their way to put together an inferior list if there was any possible way they could put together a better list.

[mightytiges]

There's still a couple of more weeks until the final list lodgements at the end of October sometime. So we'll know of any further delistings by then.

[jezza]

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out already, but Campbell is already on the veterans list, and can not be moved back to the main list without being delisted. Therefore we have an extra pick than what the poll in this topic indicates, we will be using pick 36 (or a second PSD pick) and will only have to delist one (or promote Richo to the vets list) to be able to use pick 52.

[mightytiges]

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out already, but Campbell is already on the veterans list, and can not be moved back to the main list without being delisted.

Cambo will remain on our veterans' list. It's just that Clubs have the option of including or excluding their veterans from their senior list of 38. If you include your vets within the 38 then obviously they take up senior list spots; alternatively if they are separate from the 38 then they reduce rookie list spots. In 2005 our veterans' list will contain Cambo and Richo but they will be included as part of our senior list of 38. As a result we will have the maximum 6 rookie list spots at our disposal.

     2004             

   Senior list of 37 (1 short)
           +
   2 vets (Cambo and Duncan)
           +
   Rookie list of 3 (out of 4 available spots)   

      2005

   Senior list of 38  (36 + 2 vets - Cambo, Richo)
             +
   6 rookie list spots available

[Harry]

Don't know if anyone has pointed this out already, but Campbell is already on the veterans list, and can not be moved back to the main list without being delisted.

Cambo will remain on our veterans' list. It's just that Clubs have the option of including or excluding their veterans from their senior list of 38. If you include your vets within the 38 then obviously they take up senior list spots; alternatively if they are separate from the 38 then they reduce rookie list spots. In 2005 our veterans' list will contain Cambo and Richo but they will be included as part of our senior list of 38. As a result we will have the maximum 6 rookie list spots at our disposal.

     2004             

   Senior list of 37 (1 short)
           +
   2 vets (Cambo and Duncan)
           +
   Rookie list of 3 (out of 4 available spots)   

      2005

   Senior list of 38  (36 + 2 vets - Cambo, Richo)
             +
   6 rookie list spots available

So in effect, if this is how RFC decide to go, we will be going 2 short on our list.  Therefore only recruiting 6 more 1,4,12,16,20 and PSD1 if no more are delisted.  I don't like it !

TW has stated that he'd rather go an assistant short rather than a player.  Taking this into consideration, I would say that we'd go to at least 39 players........thus utilising pick 36 IF no more delisting occur.

I would like us to delist 2 more and go to 39 players, thus utilising 36,52 and 68. 

But I get the feeling that we'll delist 1 more, utilise pick 52 and go to 39 players.

[jezza]

Sorry, I wasn't overly clear with that post. What I've been told is that Campbo was counted outside the main list this year, thus he must be counted outside again next year. A veteran can not be downgraded to being on the senior list without being delisted (this is what I have read elsewhere, I haven't seen any official confirmation that it is in fact the rule). If this is true, then it will be:

2005:
Senior list of 38 (incl Richo and Moore) + 1 vet (Campbell)
+
max 5 rookies

Given we have 32 players listed at the moment, it gives us 7 picks, of which one will be PSD. If we either move Richo off the senior list (which would mean a max of 4 rookies), or delist another player, we can utilise either pick 52 or PSD second round pick to fill the list.

The decision will come down to whether a good enough player is available for selection, and whether we have the finances available to cover an additional player.

[mightytiges]

Sorry, I wasn't overly clear with that post. What I've been told is that Campbo was counted outside the main list this year, thus he must be counted outside again next year. A veteran can not be downgraded to being on the senior list without being delisted (this is what I have read elsewhere, I haven't seen any official confirmation that it is in fact the rule).

Not a prob jezza. I'm not aware of such a rule but can't say there isn't one either  . I'll check to see if I can find out.

[jezza]

Thanks mate, am very keen to see if this is the case or not. Definitely want to see 6 kids drafted as a minimum, and very annoyed to say the least that the financial mismanagement of the club is now jeopordising us developing the best possible team for the future.

[Tiger Spirit]

The decision will come down to whether a good enough player is available for selection, and whether we have the finances available to cover an additional player.

That’s what I believed their thinking to be Jezza.  So I’m not overly concerned which way we go, because if we aren’t confident that we now have people who know what they are doing then I don’t know when we ever will be.  For me, whatever happens and whichever way we go with this, it will be in the best, long-term interests of RFC.  I don’t think we can ask for any more than that.

And I don’t know if anyone can accuse Greg Miller of not being prepared to take a risk or two, if necessary.

[H Tiger]

Which way is GM taking a risk though?

I think it's a risk not using at least two of the picks after twenty.

[jezza]

The decision will come down to whether a good enough player is available for selection, and whether we have the finances available to cover an additional player.

That’s what I believed their thinking to be Jezza.  So I’m not overly concerned which way we go, because if we aren’t confident that we now have people who know what they are doing then I don’t know when we ever will be.  For me, whatever happens and whichever way we go with this, it will be in the best, long-term interests of RFC.  I don’t think we can ask for any more than that.

And I don’t know if anyone can accuse Greg Miller of not being prepared to take a risk or two, if necessary.

I'm confident GM will make the right decision, given there are factors we won't be aware of, but financially permitting, my preference is for as many draft picks as we can get.

There are risks involved, such as creating a bit of a generation gap in the team, and forcing kids to play before they are ready, but I think that would only be the case if we went overboard and selected say 10 kids.

This year we have very specific requirements that we need to get out of the draft: 2 midfielders, 2 KPPs and a ruckman, as a minimum. The problem is, not every kid we draft will make it. If we draft 5 kids matching those positions, chances are one or two will fail and we will be left lacking again. To ensure we fill the positions we need, we have to overdraft in each position so I would like 7 or 8 kids drafted, not 5.

Also, we have had some success late in the draft with Jackson, Raines and Hartigan so we should be able to get something out of picks 36 and 52. (Jackson was 53, if we can get another like him there we will be laughing).

Many people raise the issue of drafting a kid means we are locked in to a two year deal. I don't think this is a factor. Most of these kids will need at least 2 years to prove themselves anyway, plus the cost of a draftee on the list is not that much, especially given we have stopped overpaying senior players and made some good moves salary cap wise. Every year there are players who are going to be delisted so having these kids for 2 years is not a problem, if some are no good we can delist them in 2 years time. Every year we will be bringing in more kids so every year the group from 2 years previous will be coming out of contract so it is easy to delist/trade the duds.